CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 ONE TO ONE INTERVIEWS: TEACHING PRACTICES OF SIX FOUNDATION PHASE SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATORS
4.1.7 ASSESSMENT
learners, 'Point out 5 objects that begin with the letter D' or giving instructions, 'count out 10 sweets' or asking questions. Of significance in oral assessment was the clear and simple use of vocabulary in questions or instructions. The participant with a hearing impairment stressed the importance of Sign Language (visual-gestural) assessment for learners with hearing impairments. She indicated that their understanding was assessed through object or picture identification and through questioning and descriptions, for example, 'tell me about this pen'. She commented that learners with hearing impairments lack early infant language stimulation and that she had to simplify questions, provide clues and prompts to aid understanding when assessing through Sign Language. Other assessment considerations for learners with hearing impairments include using Sign Language interpreters, video recordings and allowing additional time to complete tasks or tests(Departrnent of Education, 2002a).
Participants indicated a strong preference for one to one or individual assessment.
They referred to the need to consider the individual nature and different ability level of each child. For instance, listening to each child reading flash cards and books enables individual assessment of the use of phonics. The participants stated that some foundation phase learners were too young and immature to engage in group
assessment, however, peer and self assessment were used on occasion. Self-
assessment is beneficial as it allows learners to experience success by assessing their own work on an ongoing basis and makes them aware of their progress (Dednam, 2005). Participants stressed that assessment was continuous with learners' books, tests and homework being marked daily and corrections completed immediately to monitor understanding of concepts. They indicated that answers to tests may be oral, written, typed, signed by means of Sign Language or brailled and then transcribed for marking. The participant who was blind stated that all tests and worksheets should be brailled for learners with visual impairments or if the learner was new to Braille he was sent to the facilitator for the blind or an amanuensis (a person who reads the question paper and scribes the answers). An important assessment consideration for learners with visual impairments include allowing additional time to complete tasks, tests and examinations, because Braille reading is much slower than sighted reading (Landsberg, 2005b).
Additional assessment considerations noted by the participants included giving extra time for learners who work at a slower pace because of poor motor control. Other learners require extra time because they are cognitive1y slower at processing and understanding of concepts and questions. These learners should be given a reduced volume of work to do, for instance giving 5 sums rather than 10 during assessment.
In a similar vein,Kruger and Groenewald (2004) advocate allowing additional time and reducing the volume of work to be assessed. Participants reiterated that they assessed understanding rather than the speed of working. However, participants stressed that the level of complexity be maintained with a balance of simple, moderate and complex questions. Itwas also suggested that a leamer's understanding should be assessed step by step. One participant indicated that she assessed one entire step before assessing the second step. If she assessed everything at once,the special needs learner became overwhelmed and overloaded, leading to learning breakdown. She emphasised that all learning,including assessment must be divided into small steps to ensure success. Likewise, Dednam (2005) suggests dividing the assessment tasks into small steps that the learners understand and are able to accommodate.
All the participants emphasised that the learners in the class have to be patient during assessment to listen to a learner who presents with slurred,unintelligible speech and to be patient while the educator repeats the response. The participant with a hearing impairment suggested using drama and plays for assessing learners with hearing impairments in order for them to demonstrate their understanding and abilities. The participant who was blind stated that she had to be constantly aware,as partially sighted learners tried to cheat during assessment by bending down to peep rather than to feel the Braille words as they read. Itis significant to note that the participants' forms of assessment are in line with the influential assessment guideline document published by the Department of Education (2002a).
4.1.7.1 Assessment challenges
First,participants indicated that a language barrier was evidentwith learners whose first language was not English. To compensate, two of the participants stated that they used code switching in the class by asking questions in the child's first language, for example Zulu, while the other participants stated that they allowed other learners to translate the question after ensuring accurate understanding of the question. In
addition, participants emphasised being sensitive to cultural responses by
accommodating culturally relevant yet differentresponses from learners. The latter statement is supported by Ne1 (2005), who writes that the educator should not have differentiated stereotypical expectations based on ethnicity, but rather be sensitive to the individual differences that are associated with linguistic and cultural diversity.
Second, participants stated that it was a challenge assessing learners who had not received a sufficient number of years of schooling. Third, it was a challenge assessing learners who severely lacked adequate early infant environmental
stimulation and exposure. Itwas stressed that such learners presented with enormous learning gaps that had to be continually accommodated for in all learning, teaching and assessment activities. In support of the latter statements,Jooste and Jooste (2005) write that children living in poverty often do not have access to schools. They will then not develop the kind of cognitive skills required in a technologically
sophisticated society.
Fourth, it was a challenge accepting that learners with the same disabilities are different from each other and should be assessed and treated as unique persons. The latter statement is supported by Mertens and McLaughlin (2004) who question the myth of homogeneity, that is,that all members of a minority group share the same characteristics. The authors add that diversity within the disabled population encompasses race,gender, language, severity and type of disability, functional limitations and use of assistive devices. Fifth, participants indicated that it was a challenge recognising that some disabilities are hidden while others are obvious, for instance,learning impairment is a hidden disability. Sixth, participants identified that it was challenging to accommodate secondary concerns of learners (besides their primary disability) such as emotional issues that negatively impact on learners' assessment and subsequent academic performance. Similarly, Dednam (2005) states that besides learning difficulties, some learners often experience emotional and social problems that cause disinhibition and problems with interrelationships.
Ithas been emphasised that one of the key principles of outcomes based education and C2005 is that all learners can learn albeit at a different pace and along different pathways (Spady, 1994). In support of the latter perspective, all the participants suggested many practical ways in which they adapted their assessment activities or
provided alternative forms of assessment. In this way the participants provided multiple assessment opportunities in order to give the learners a chance to improve their work and to achieve optimally.